Tertullian

Tertullian

On the Veiling of Virgins

CHAP. I.--TRUTH RATHER TO BE APPEALED TO THAN CUSTOM, AND TRUTH PROGRESSIVE
IN ITS DEVELOPMENTS.

HAVING already undergone the trouble peculiar to my opinion, I will show in
Latin also that it behoves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have
passed the turning-point of their age: that this observance is exacted by truth,
on which no one can impose prescription--no space of times, no influence of
persons, no privilege of regions. For these, for the most part, are the sources
whence, from some ignorance or simplicity, custom finds its beginning; and then
it is successionally confirmed into an usage, and thus is maintained in
opposition to truth. But our Lord Christ has surnamed Himself Truth, not Custom.
If Christ is always, and prior to all, equally truth is a thing sempiternal and
ancient. Let those therefore look to themselves, to whom that is new which is
intrinsically old. It is not so much novelty as truth which convicts heresies.
Whatever savours of opposition to truth, this will be heresy, even (if it be an)
ancient custom. On the other hand, if any is ignorant of anything, the ignorance
proceeds from his own defect. Moreover, whatever is matter of ignorance ought to
have been as carefully inquired into as whatever is matter of acknowledgment
received. The rule of faith, indeed, is altogether one, alone immoveable and
irreformable; the rule, to wit, of believing in one only God omnipotent, the
Creator of the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary,
crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised again the third day from the dead,
received in the heavens, sitting now at the right (hand) of the Father, destined
to come to judge quick and dead through the resurrection of the flesh as well
(as of the spirit). This law of faith being constant, the other succeeding
points of discipline and conversation admit the "novelty" of correction; the
grace of God, to wit, operating and advancing even to the end. For what kind of
(supposition) is it, that, while the devil is always operating and adding daily
to the ingenuities of iniquity, the work of God should either have ceased, or
else have desisted from advancing? whereas the reason why the Lord sent the
Paraclete was, that, since human mediocrity was unable to take in all things at
once, discipline should, little by little, be directed, and ordained, and
carried on to perfection, by that Vicar of the Lord, the Holy Spirit. "Still,"
He said, "I have many things to say to you, but ye are not yet able to bear
them: when that Spirit of truth shall have come, He will conduct you into all
truth, and will report to you the supervening (things)." But above, withal, He
made a declaration concerning this His work. What, then, is the Paraclete's
administrative office but this: the direction of discipline, the revelation of
the Scriptures, the reformation of the intellect, the advancement toward the
"better things?" Nothing is without stages of growth: all things await their
season. In short, the preacher says, "A time to everything." Look how creation
itself advances little by little to fructification. First comes the grain, and
from the grain arises the shoot, and from the shoot struggles out the shrub:
thereafter boughs and leaves gather strength, and the whole that we call a tree
expands: then follows the swelling of the germen, and from the germen bursts the
flower, and from the flower the fruit opens: that fruit itself, rude for a
while, and unshapely, little by little, keeping the straight course of its
development, is trained to the mellowness of its flavour. So, too,
righteousness--for the God of righteousness and of creation is the same--was
first in a rudimentary state, having a natural fear of God: from that stage it
advanced, through the Law and the Prophets, to infancy; from that stage it
passed, through the Gospel, to the fervour of youth: now, through the Paraclete,
it is settling into maturity. He will be, after Christ, the only one to be
called and revered as Master; for He speaks not from Himself, but what is
commanded by Christ. He is the only prelate, because He alone succeeds Christ.
They who have received Him set truth before custom. They who have heard Him
prophesying even to the present time, not of old, bid virgins be wholly covered.

But I will not, meantime, attribute this usage to Truth. Be it, for a while,
custom: that to custom I may likewise oppose custom. Throughout Greece, and
certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins
covered. There are places, too, beneath this (African) sky, where this practice
obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian Gentilehood. But I
have proposed (as models) those Churches which were founded by apostles or
apostolic men; and antecedently, I think, to certain (founders, who shall be
nameless). Those Churches therefore, as well (as others), have the self-same
authority of custom (to appeal to); in opposing phalanx they range "times" and
"teachers," more than these later (Churches do). What shah we observe? What
shall we choose? We cannot contemptuously reject a custom which we cannot
condemn, inasmuch as it is not "strange," since it is not among "strangers" that
we find it, but among those, to wit, with whom we share the law of peace and the
name of brotherhood. They and we have one faith, one God, the same Christ, the
same hope, the same baptismal sacraments; let me say it once for all, we are one
Church. Thus, whatever belongs to our brethren is ours: only, the body divides
us.

Still, here (as generally happens in all cases of various practice, of doubt,
and of uncertainty), examination ought to have been made to see which of two so
diverse customs were the more compatible with the discipline of God. And, of
course, that ought to have been chosen which keeps virgins veiled, as being
known to God alone; who (besides that glory must be sought from God, not from
men) ought to blush even at their own privilege. You put a virgin to the blush
more by praising than by blaming her; because the front of sin is more hard,
learning shamelessness from and in the sin itself. For that custom which belies
virgins while it exhibits them, would never have been approved by any except by
some men who must have been similar in character to the virgins themselves. Such
eyes will wish that a virgin be seen as has the virgin who shall wish to be
seen. The same kinds of eyes reciprocally crave after each other. Seeing and
being seen belong to the self-same lust. To blush if he see a virgin is as much
a mark of a chaste man, as of a chaste virgin if seen by a man.

CHAP. III.--GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF CUSTOM, AND ITS RESULTS. PASSIONATE APPEAL
TO TRUTH.

But not even between customs have those most chaste s teachers chosen to
examine. Still, until very recently, among us, either custom was, with
comparative indifference, admitted to communion. The matter had been left to
choice, for each virgin to veil herself or expose herself, as she might have
chosen, just as (she had equal liberty) as to marrying, which itself withal is
neither enforced nor prohibited. Truth had been content to make an agreement
with custom, in order that under the name of custom it might enjoy itself even
partially. But when the power of discerning began to advance, so that the
licence granted to either fashion was becoming the mean whereby the indication
of the better part emerged; immediately the great adversary of good things--and
much more of good institutions--set to his own work. The virgins of men go
about, in opposition to the virgins of God, with front quite bare, excited to a
rash audacity; and the semblance of virgins is exhibited by women who have the
power of asking somewhat from husbands, not to say such a request as that
(forsooth) their rivals--all the more "free" in that they are the "hand-maids"
of Christ alone--may be surrendered to them. "We are scandalized," they say,
"because others walk otherwise (than we do);" and they prefer being
"scandalized" to being provoked (to modesty). A "scandal," if I mistake not, is
an example not of a good thing, but of a bad, tending to sinful edification.
Good things scandalize none but an evil mind. If modesty, if bashfulness, if
contempt of glory, anxious to please God alone, are good things, let women who
are "scandalized" by such good learn to acknowledge their own evil. For what if
the incontinent withal say they are "scandalized" by the continent? Is
continence to be recalled? And, for fear the multinubists be "scandalized," is
monogamy to be rejected? Why may not these latter rather complain that the
petulance, the impudence, of ostentatious virginity is a "scandal" to them? Are
therefore chaste virgins to be, for the sake of these marketable creatures,
dragged into the church, blushing at being recognised in public, quaking at
being unveiled, as if they had been invited as it were to rape? For they axe no
less unwilling to suffer even this. Every public exposure of an honourable
virgin is (to her) a suffering of rape: and yet the suffering of carnal violence
is the less (evil), because it comes of natural office. But when the very spirit
itself is violated in a virgin by the abstraction of her covering, she has
learnt to lose what she used to keep. O sacrilegious hands, which have had the
hardihood to drag off a dress dedicated to God! What worse could any persecutor
have done, if he had known that this (garb) had been chosen by a virgin? You
have denuded a maiden in regard of her head, and forthwith she wholly ceases to
be a virgin tO herself; she has undergone a change! Arise, therefore, Truth;
arise, and as it were burst forth from Thy patience! No custom do I wish Thee to
defend; for by this time even that custom under which Thou didst enjoy thy own
liberty is being stormed!

Demonstrate that it is Thyself who art the coverer of virgins. Interpret in
person Thine own Scriptures, which Custom understandeth not; for, if she had,
she never would have had an existence.

CHAP. IV.--OF THE ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM

COR. XI. 5-16.

But in so far as it is the custom to argue even from the Scriptures in
opposition to truth, there is immediately urged against us the fact that "no
mention of virgins is made by the apostle where he is prescribing about the
veil, but that 'women' only are named; whereas, if he had willed virgins as well
to be covered, he would have pronounced concerning 'virgins' also together with
the 'women' named; just as," says (our opponent), "in that passage where he is
treating of marriage, he declares likewise with regard to 'virgins' what
observance is to be followed." And accordingly (it is urged) that "they are not
comprised in the law of veiling the head, as not being named in this law; nay
rather, that this is the origin of their being unveiled, inasmuch as they who
are not named are not bidden."

But we withal retort the self-same line of argument. For he who knew
elsewhere how to make mention of each sex--of virgin I mean, and woman, that is,
not-virgin--for distinction's sake; in these (passages), in which he does not
name a virgin, points out (by not making the distinction) community of
condition. Otherwise he could here also have marked the difference between
virgin and woman, just as elsewhere he says, "Divided is the woman and the
virgin." Therefore those whom, by passing them over in silence, he has not
divided, he has included in the other species.

Nor yet, because in that case "divided is both woman and virgin," will this
division exert its patronizing influence in the present case as well, as some
will have it. For how many sayings, uttered on another occasion, have no
weight--in cases, to wit, where they are not uttered--unless the subject-matter
be the same as on the other occasion, so that the one utterance may suffice! But
the former case of virgin and woman is widely "divided" from the present
question. "Divided," he says, "is the woman and the virgin." Why? Inasmuch as
"the unmarried," that is, the virgin, "is anxious about those (things) which are
the Lord's, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but the married,"
that is, the not-virgin, "is anxious how she may please her husband." This will
be the interpretation of that "division," having no place in this passage (now
under consideration); in which pronouncement is made neither about marriage, nor
about the mind and the thought of woman and of virgin, but about the veiling of
the head. Of which (veiling) the Holy Spirit, willing that there should be no
distinction, willed that by the one name of woman should likewise be understood
the virgin; whom, by not specially naming, He has not separated from the woman,
and, by not separating, has conjoined to her from whom He has not separated her.

Is it now, then, a "novelty" to use the primary word, and nevertheless to
have the other (subordinate divisions) understood in that word, in cases where
there is no necessity for individually distinguishing the (various parts of the)
universal whole? Naturally, a compendious style of speech is both pleasing and
necessary; inasmuch as diffuse speech is both tiresome and vain. So, too, we are
content with general words, which comprehend in themselves the understanding of
the specialties. Proceed we, then, to the word itself. The word (expressing the)
natural (distinction) is female. Of the natural word, the general word is woman.
Of the general, again, the special is virgin, or wife, or widow, or whatever
other names, even of the successive stages of life, are added hereto. Subject,
therefore, the special is to the general (because the general is prior); and the
succedent to the antecedent, and the partial to the universal: (each) is implied
in the word itself to which it is subject; and is signified in it, because
contained in it. Thus neither hand, nor foot, nor any one of the members,
requires to be signified when the body is named. And if you say the universe,
therein will be both the heaven and the things that are in it,--sun and moon,
and constellations and stars,--and the earth and the seas, and everything that
goes to make up the list of elements. You will have named all, when you have
named that which is made up of all. So, too, by naming woman, he has named
whatever is woman's.

CHAP. V.--OF THE WORD WOMAN, ESPECIALLY IN' CONNECTION WITH ITS APPLICATION
TO EVE.

But since they use the name of woman in such a way as to think it
inapplicable save to her alone who has known a man, the pertinence of the
propriety of this word to the sex itself, not to a grade of the sex, must be
proved by us; that virgins as well (as others) may be commonly comprised in it.

When this kind of second human being was made by God for man's assistance,
that female was forthwith named woman; still happy, still worthy of paradise,
still virgin. "She shall be called," said (Adam), "Woman." And accordingly you
have the name,--I say, not already common to a virgin, but--proper (to her; a
name) which from the beginning was allotted to a virgin. But some ingeniously
will have it that it was said of the future, "She shall be called woman," as if
she were destined to be so when she had resigned her virginity; since he added
withal: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and be
conglutinated to his own woman; and the two shall be one flesh." Let them
therefore among whom that subtlety obtains show us first, if she were surnamed
woman with a future reference, what name she meantime received. For without a
name expressive of her present quality she cannot have been. But what kind of
(hypothesis) is it that one who, with an eye to the future, was called by a
definite name, at the present time should have nothing for a surname? On all
animals Adam imposed names; and on none on the ground of future condition, but
on the ground of the present purpose which each particular nature served; called
(as each nature was) by that to which from the beginning it showed a propensity.
What, then, was she at that time called? Why, as often as she is named in the
Scripture, she has the appellation woman before she was wedded, and never virgin
while she was a virgin.

This name was at that time the only one she had, and (that) when nothing was
(as yet) said prophetically. For when the Scripture records that "the two were
naked, Adam and his woman," neither does this savour of the future, as if it
said "his woman" as a presage of "wife;" but because his woman was withal
unwedded, as being (formed) from his own substance. "This bone," he says, "out
of my bones, and flesh out of my flesh, shall be called woman." Hence, then, it
is from the tacit consciousness of nature that the actual divinity of the soul
has educed into the ordinary usage of common speech, unawares to men, (just as
it has thus educed many other things too which we shall elsewhere be able to
show to derive from the Scriptures the origin of their doing and saying,) our
fashion of calling our wives our women, however improperly withal we may in same
instances speak. For the Greeks, too, who use the name of woman more (than we
do) in the sense of wife, have other names appropriate to wife. But I prefer to
assign this usage as a testimony to Scripture. For when two are made into one
flesh through the marriage-tie, the "flesh of flesh and bone of bones" is called
the woman of him of whose substance she begins to be accounted by being made his
wife. Thus woman is not by nature a name of wife, but wife by condition is a
name of woman. In fine, womanhood is predicable apart from wifehood; but
wifehood apart from womanhood is not, because it cannot even exist. Having
therefore settled the name of the newly-made female--which (name) is woman--and
having explained what she formerly was, that is, having sealed the name to her,
he immediately turned to the prophetic reason, so as to say, "On this account
shall a man leave father and mother." The name is so truly separate from the
prophecy, as far as (the prophecy) from the individual person herself, that of
course it is not with reference to Eve herself that (Adam) has uttered (the
prophecy), but with a view to those future females whom he has named in the
maternal fount of the feminine race. Besides, Adam was not to leave "father and
mother"--whom he had not--for the sake of Eve. Therefore that which was
prophetically said does not apply to Eve, because it does not to Adam either.
For it was predicted with regard to the condition of husbands, who were destined
to leave their parents for a woman's sake; which could net chance to Eve,
because it could not to Adorn either.

If the case is so, it is apparent that she was not surnamed woman on account
of a future (circumstance), to whom (that) future (circumstance) did not apply.

To this is added, that (Adam) himself published the reason of the name. For,
after saying, "She shall be called woman," he said, "inasmuch as she hath been
taken out of man"--the man himself withal being still a virgin. But we will
speak, too, about the name of man in its own place. Accordingly, let none
interpret with a prophetic reference a name which was deduced from another
signification; especially since it is apparent when she did receive a name
rounded upon a future (circumstance)--there, namely, where she is surnamed
"Eve," with a personal name now, because the natural one had gone before. For if
"Eve" means "the mother of the living," behold, she is surnamed from a future
(circumstance)! behold, she is pre-announced to be a wife, and not a virgin!
This will be the name of one who is about to wed; for of the bride (comes) the
mother.

Thus in this case too it is shown, that it was not from a future
(circumstance) that she was at that time named woman, who was shortly after to
receive the name which would be proper to her future condition.

Sufficient answer has been made to this part (of the question).

CHAP. VI.--THE PARALLEL CASE OF MARY CONSIDERED.

Let us now see whether the apostle withal observes the norm of this name in
accordance with Genesis, attributing it to the sex; calling the virgin Mary a
woman, just as Genesis (does) Eve. For, writing to the Galatians, "God," he
says, "sent His own Son, made of a woman," who, of course, is admitted to have
been a virgin, albeit Hebion resist (that doctrine). I recognise, too, the angel
Gabriel as having been sent to "a virgin." But when he is blessing her, it is
"among women," not among virgins, that he ranks her: "Blessed thou among women."
The angel withal knew that even a virgin is called a woman.

But to these two (arguments), again, there is one who appears to himself to
have made an ingenious answer; (to the effect that) inasmuch as Mary was
"betrothed," therefore it is that both by angel and apostle she is pronounced a
woman; for a "betrothed" is in some sense a "bride." Still, between "in some
sense" and "truth" there is difference enough, at all events in the present
place: for elsewhere, we grant, we must thus hold. Now, however, it is not as
being already wedded that they have pronounced Mary a woman, but as being none
the less a female even if she had not been espoused; as having been called by
this (name) from the beginning: for that must necessarily have a prejudicating
force from which the normal type has descended. Else, as far as relates to the
present passage, if Mary is here put on a level with a "betrothed," so that she
is called a woman not on the Found of being a female, but on the ground of being
assigned to a husband, it immediately follows that Christ was not born of a
virgin, because (born) of one "betrothed," who by this fact will have ceased to
be a virgin. Whereas, if He was born of a virgin--albeit withal "betrothed," yet
intact--acknowledge that even a virgin, even an intact one, is called a woman.
Here, at all events, there can be no semblance of speaking prophetically, as if
the apostle should have named a future woman, that is, bride, in saying "made of
a woman." For he could not be naming a posterior woman, from whom Christ had not
to be born--that is, one who had known a man; but she who was then present, who
was a virgin, was withal called a woman in consequence of the propriety of this
name,--vindicated, in accordance with the primordial norm, (as belonging) to a
virgin, and thus to the universal class of women.

CHAP. VII.--OF THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE APOSTLE FOR BIDDING WOMEN TO BE
VEILED.

Turn we next to the examination of the reasons themselves which lead the
apostle to teach that the female ought to be veiled, (to see) whether the
self-same (reasons) apply to virgins likewise; so that hence also the community
of the name between virgins and not-virgins may be established, while the
self-same causes which necessitate the veil are found to exist in each case.

If "the man is head of the woman," of course (he is) of the virgin too, from
whom comes the woman who has married; unless the virgin is a third generic
class, some monstrosity with a head of its own. If "it is shameful for a woman
to be shaven or shorn," of course it is so for a virgin. (Hence let the world,
the rival of God, see to it, if it asserts that close-cut hair is graceful to a
virgin in like manner as that flowing hair is to a boy.) To her, then, to whom
it is equally unbecoming to be shaven or shorn, it is equally becoming to be
covered. If" the woman is the glory of the man," how much more the virgin, who
is a glory withal to herself! If "the woman is of the man," and "for the sake of
the man," that rib of Adam was first a virgin. If "the woman ought to have power
upon the head," all the more justly ought the virgin, to whom pertains the
essence of the cause (assigned for this assertion). For if (it is) on account of
the angels--those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven
on account of concupiscence after females--who can presume that it was bodies
already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such angels yearned after, so
as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins, whose bloom pleads an excuse
for human lust likewise? For thus does Scripture withal suggest: "And it came to
pass," it says, "when men had begun to grow more numerous upon the earth, there
were withal daughters born them; but the sons of God, having descried the
daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they
elected." For here the Greek name of women does seem to have the sense "wives,"
inasmuch as mention is made of marriage. When, then, it says "the daughters of
men," it manifestly purports virgins, who would be still reckoned as belonging
to their parents--for wedded women are called their husbands'--whereas it could
have said "the wives of men:" in like manner not naming the angels adulterers,
but husbands, while they take unwedded" daughters of men," who it has above said
were "born," thus also signifying their virginity: first,"born;" but here,
wedded to angels. Anything else I know not that they were except "born" and
subsequently wedded. So perilous a face, then, ought to be shaded, which has
cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven: that, when standing in the presence
of God, at whose bar it stands accused of the driving of the angels from their
(native) confines, it may blush before the other angels as well; and may repress
that former evil liberty of its head,-- (a liberty) now to be exhibited not even
before human eyes. But even if they were females already contaminated whom those
angels had desired, so much the more "on account of the angels" would it have
been the duty of virgins to be veiled, as it would have been the more possible
for virgins to have been the cause of the angels' sinning. If, moreover, the
apostle further adds the prejudgment of "nature," that redundancy of locks is an
honour to a woman, because hair serves for a covering? of course it is most of
all to a virgin that this is a distinction; for their very adornment properly
consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly
covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair.

CHAP. VIII.--THE ARGUMENT E CONTRARIO.

The contraries, at all events, of all these (considerations) effect that a
man is not to cover his head: to wit, because he has not by nature been gifted
with excess of hair; because to be shaven or shorn is not shameful to him;
because it was not on his account that the angels transgressed; because his Head
is Christ. Accordingly, since the apostle is treating of man and woman--why the
latter ought to be veiled, but the former not--it is apparent why he has been
silent as to the virgin; allowing, to wit, the virgin to be understood in the
woman by the self-same reason by which he forbore to name the boy as implied in
the man; embracing the whole order of either sex in the names proper (to each)
of woman and man. So likewise Adam, while still intact, is surnamed in Genesis
man: "She shall be called," says he, "woman, because she hath been taken from
her own man." Thus was Adam a man before nuptial intercourse, in like manner as
Eve a woman. On either side the apostle has made his sentence apply with
sufficient plainness to the universal species of each sex; and briefly and
fully, with so well-appointed a definition, he says, "Every woman." What is
"every," but of every class, of every order, of every condition, of every
dignity, of every age?--if, (as is the case), "every" means total and entire,
and in none of its parts defective. But the virgin is withal a part of the
woman. Equally, too, with regard to not veiling the man, he says "every." Behold
two diverse names, Man and Woman--"every one" in each case: two laws, mutually
distinctive; on the one hand (a law) of veiling, on the other (a law) of baring.
Therefore, if the fact that it is said "every man" makes it plain that the name
of man is common even to him who is not yet a man, a stripling male;, moreover,
since the name is common according to nature, the law of not veiling him who
among men is a virgin is common too according to discipline: why is it that it
is not consequently prejudged that, woman being named, every woman-virgin is
similarly comprised in the fellowship of the name, so as to be comprised too in
the community of the law? If a virgin is not a woman, neither is a stripling a
man. If the virgin is not covered on the plea that she is not a woman, let the
stripling be covered on the plea that he is not a man. Let identity of
virginity, share equality of indulgence. As virgins are not compelled to be
veiled, so let boys not be bidden to be unveiled. Why do we partly acknowledge
the definition of the apostle, as absolute with regard to "every man," without
entering upon disquisitions as to why he has not withal named the boy; but
partly prevaricate, though it is equally absolute with regard to "every
woman?""If any," he says, "is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has)
the Church of God." He shows that there had been some contention about this
point; for the extinction whereof he uses the whole compendiousness (of
language): not naming the virgin, on the one hand, in order to show that there
is to be no doubt about her veiling; and, on the other hand, naming "every
woman," whereas he would have named the virgin (had the question been confined
to her). So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at
this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their
disciples approve.

CHAP. IX.--VEILING CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER RULES OF DISCIPLINE OBSERVED BY
VIRGINS AND WOMEN IN GENERAL.

Let is now see whether, as we have shown the arguments drawn from nature and
the matter itself to be applicable to the virgin as well (as to other females),
so likewise the precepts of ecclesiastical discipline concerning women have an
eye to the virgin.

It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it
permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a
lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office. Let us inquire
whether any of these be lawful to a virgin. If it is not lawful to a virgin, but
she is subjected on the self-same terms (as the woman), and the necessity for
humility is assigned her together with the woman, whence will this one thing be
lawful to her which is not lawful to any and every female? If any is a virgin,
and has proposed to sanctify her flesh, what prerogative does she (thereby) earn
adverse to her own condition? Is the reason why it is granted her to dispense
with the veil, that she may be notable and marked as she enters the church? that
she may display the honour of sanctity in the liberty of her head? More worthy
distinction could have been conferred on her by according her some prerogative
of manly rank or office! I know plainly, that in a certain place a virgin of
less than twenty years of age has been placed in the order of widows! whereas if
the bishop had been bound to accord her any relief, he might, of course, have
done it in some other way without detriment to the respect due to discipline;
that such a miracle, not to say monster, should not be pointed at in the church,
a virgin-widow! the more portentous indeed, that not even as a widow did she
veil her head; denying herself either way; both as virgin, in that she is
counted a widow, and as widow, in that she is styled a virgin. But the authority
which licenses her sitting in that seat uncovered is the same which allows her
to sit there as a virgin: a seat to which (besides the "sixty years" not merely
"single-husbanded " (women)--that is, married women--are at length elected, but
"mothers" to boot, yes, and "educators of children;" in order, forsooth, that
their experimental training in all the affections may, on the one hand, have
rendered them capable of readily aiding all others with counsel and comfort, and
that, on the other, they may none the less have travelled down the whole course
of probation whereby a female can he tested.

So true is; it, that, on the ground of her position, nothing in the way of
public honour is permitted to a virgin.

CHAP. X.--IF THE FEMALE VIRGINS ARE TO BE THUS CONSPICUOUS, WHY NOT THE MALE
AS WELL?

Nor, similarly, (is it permitted) on the ground of any distinctions whatever.
Otherwise, it were sufficiently discourteous, that while females, subjected as
they are throughout to men, bear in their front an honourable mark of their
virginity, whereby they may be looked up to and gazed at on all sides and
magnified by the brethren, so many men-virgins, so many voluntary eunuchs,
should carry their glory in secret, carrying no token to make them, too,
illustrious. For they, too, will be bound to claim some distinctions for
themselves--either the feathers of the Garamantes, or else the fillets of the
barbarians, or else the cicadas of the Athenians, or else the curls of the
Germans, or else the tattoo-marks of the Britons; or else let the opposite
course be taken, and let them lurk in the churches with head veiled. Sure we are
that the Holy Spirit could rather have made some such concession to males, if He
had made it to females; forasmuch as, besides the authority of sex, it would
have been more becoming that males should have been honoured on the ground of
continency itself likewise. The more their sex is eager and warm toward females,
so much the more toil does the continence of (this) greater ardour involve; and
therefore the worthier is it of all ostentation, if ostentation of virginity is
dignity. For is not continence withal superior to virginity, whether it be the
continence of the widowed, or of those who, by consent, have already renounced
the common disgrace (which matrimony involves)? For constancy of virginity is
maintained by grace; of continence, by virtue. For great is the struggle to
overcome concupiscence when you have become accustomed to such concupiscence;
whereas a concupiscence the enjoyment whereof you have never known you will
subdue easily, not having an adversary (in the shape of) the concupiscence of
enjoyment. How, then, would God have failed to make any such concession to men
more (than to women), whether on the ground of nearer intimacy, as being "His
own image," or on the ground of harder toil? But if nothing (has been thus
conceded) to the male, much more to the female.

CHAP. XI.--THE RULE OF VEILING NOT APPLICABLE TO CHILDREN.

But what we intermitted above for the sake of the subsequent discussion--not
to dissipate its coherence--we will now discharge by an answer. For when we
joined issue about the apostle's absolute definition, that "every woman" must be
understood (as meaning woman) of even every age, it might be replied by the
opposite side, that in that case it behoved the virgin to be veiled from her
nativity, and from the first entry of her age (upon the roll of time).

But it is not so; but from the time when she begins to be self-conscious, and
to awake to the sense of her own nature, and to emerge from the virgin's
(sense), and to experience that novel (sensation) which belongs to the
succeeding age. For withal the founders of the race, Adam and Eve, so long as
they were without intelligence, went "naked;" but after they tasted of "the tree
of recognition," they were first sensible of nothing more than of their cause
for shame. Thus they each marked their intelligence of their own sex by a
covering. But even if it is "on account of the angels" that she is to be veiled,
doubtless the age from which the law of the veil will come into operation will
be that from which "the daughters of men" were able to invite concupiscence of
their persons, and to experience marriage. For a virgin ceases to be a virgin
from the time that it becomes possible for her not to be one. And accordingly,
among Israel, it is unlawful to deliver one to a husband except after the
attestation by blood of her maturity; thus, before this indication, the nature
is unripe. Therefore if she is a virgin so long as she is unripe, she ceases to
be a virgin when she is perceived to be ripe; and, as not-virgin, is now subject
to the law, just as she is to marriage. And the betrothed indeed have the
example of Rebecca, who, when she was being conducted--herself still unknown--to
an unknown betrothed, as soon as she learned that he whom she had sighted from
afar was the man, awaited not the grasp of the hand, nor the meeting of the
kiss, nor the interchange of salutation; but confessing what she had
felt--namely, that she had been (already) wedded in spirit--denied herself to be
a virgin by then and there veiling herself. Oh woman already belonging to
Christ's discipline! For she showed that marriage likewise, as fornication is,
is transacted by gaze and mind; only that a Rebecca likewise some do still veil.
With regard to the rest, however (that is, those who are not betrothed), let the
procrastination of their parents, arising from straitened means or scrupulosity,
look (to them); let the vow of continence itself look (to them). In no respect
does (such procrastination) pertain to an age which is already running its own
assigned course, and paying its own dues to maturity. Another secret mother,
Nature, and another hidden father, Time, have wedded their daughter to their own
laws. Behold that virgin-daughter of yours already wedded--her soul by
expectancy, her flesh by transformation--for whom you are preparing a second
husband! Already her voice is changed, her limbs fully formed, her "shame"
everywhere clothing itself, the months paying their tributes; and do you deny
her tO be a woman whom you assert to be undergoing womanly experiences? If the
contact of a man makes a woman, let there be no covering except after actual
experience of marriage. Nay, but even among the heathens (the betrothed) are led
veiled to the husband. But if it is at betrothal that they are veiled, because
(then) both in body and in spirit they have mingled with a male, through the
kiss and the fight hands, through which means they first in spirit unsealed
their modesty, through the common pledge of conscience whereby they mutually
plighted their whole confusion; how much more will time veil them?-- (time)
without which espoused they cannot be; and by whose urgency, without espousals,
they cease to be virgins. Time even the heathens observe, that, in obedience to
the law of nature, they may render their own fights to the (different) ages. For
their females they despatch to their businesses from (the age of) twelve years,
but the male from two years later; decreeing puberty (to consist) in years, not
in espousals or nuptials. "Housewife" one is called, albeit a virgin, and
"house-father," albeit a stripling. By us not even natural laws are observed; as
if the God of nature were some other than ours!

CHAP. XII.--WOMANHOOD SELF-EVIDENT, AND NOT TO BE CONCEALED BY JUST LEAVING
THE HEAD BARE.

Recognise the woman, ay, recognise the wedded woman, by the testimonies both
of body and of spirit, which she experiences both in conscience and in flesh.
These are the earlier tablets of natural espousals and nuptials. Impose a veil
externally upon her who has (already) a covering internally. Let her whose lower
parts are not bare have her upper likewise covered. Would you know what is the
authority which age carries? Set before yourself each (of these two); one
prematurely compressed in woman's garb, and one who, though advanced in
maturity, persists in virginity with its appropriate garb: the former will more
easily be denied to be a woman than the latter believed a virgin. Such is, then,
the honesty of age, that there is no overpowering it even by garb. What of the
fact that these (virgins) of ours confess their change of age even by their
garb; and, as soon as they have understood themselves to be women, withdraw
themselves from virgins, laying aside (beginning with their head itself) their
former selves: dye their hair; and fasten their hair with more wanton pin;
professing manifest womanhood with their hair parted from the front. The next
thing is, they consult the looking-glass to aid their beauty, and thin down
their over-exacting face with washing, perhaps withal vamp it up with cosmetics,
toss their mantle about them with an air, fit tightly the multiform shoe, carry
down more ample appliances to the baths. Why should I pursue particulars? But
their manifest appliances alone exhibit their perfect womanhood: yet they wish
to play the virgin by the sole fact of leaving their head bare--denying by one
single feature what they profess by their entire deportment.

CHAP. XIII.--IF UNVEILING BE PROPER, WHY NOT PRACTISE IT ALWAYS, OUT OF THE
CHURCH AS WELL AS IN IT?

If on account of men they adopt a false garb, let them carry out that garb
fully even for that end; and as they veil their head in presence of heathens,
let them at all events in the church conceal their virginity, which they do veil
outside the church. They fear strangers: let them stand in awe of the brethren
too; or else let them have the consistent hardihood to appear as virgins in the
streets as well, as they have the hardihood to do in the churches. I will praise
their vigour, if they succeed in selling aught of virginity among the heathens
withal. Identity of nature abroad as at home, identity of custom in the presence
of men as of the Lord, consists in identity of liberty. To what purpose, then,
do they thrust their glory out of sight abroad, but expose it in the church? I
demand a reason. Is it to please the brethren, or God Himself? If God Himself,
He is as capable of beholding whatever is done in secret, as He is just to
remunerate what is done for His sole honour. In fine, He enjoins us not to
trumpet forth any one of those things which will merit reward in His sight, nor
get compensation for them from men. But if we are prohibited from letting "our
left hand know" when we bestow the gift of a single halfpenny, or any
eleemosynary bounty whatever, how deep should be the darkness in which we ought
to enshroud ourselves when we are offering God so great an oblation of our very
body and our very spirit--when we are consecrating to Him our very nature! It
follows, therefore, that what cannot appear to be done for God's sake (because
God wills not that it be done in such a way) is done for the sake of men,--a
thing, of course, primarily unlawful, as betraying a lust of glory. For glory is
a thing unlawful to those whose probation consists in humiliation of every kind.
And if it is by God that the virtue of continence is conferred, "why gloriest
thou, as if thou have not received?" If, however, you have not received it,
"what hast thou which has not been given thee?" But by this very fact it is
plain that it has not been given you by God--that it is not to God alone that
you offer it. Let us see, then, whether what is human be firm and true.

CHAP. XIV.--PERILS TO THE VIRGINS THEMSELVES ATTENDANT UPON NOT-VEILING

They report a saying uttered at one time by some one when first this question
was mooted, "And how shall we invite the other (virgins) to similar conduct?"
Forsooth, it is their numbers that will make us happy, and not the grace of God
and the merits of each individual! Is it virgins who (adorn or commend) the
Church in the sight of God, or the Church which adorns or commends virgins? (Our
objector) has therefore confessed that "glory" lies at the root of the matter.
Well, where glory is, there is solicitation; where solicitation, there
compulsion; where compulsion, there necessity; where necessity, there infirmity.
Deservedly, therefore, while they do not cover their head, in order that they
may be solicited for the sake of glory, they are forced to cover their bellies
by the ruin resulting from infirmity. For it is emulation, not religion, which
impels them. Sometimes it is that god--their belly--himself; because the
brotherhood readily undertakes the maintenance of virgins. But, moreover, it is
not merely that they are ruined, but they draw after them "a long rope of sins."
For, after being brought forth into the midst (of the church), and elated by the
public appropriation of their property, and laden by the brethren with every
honour and charitable bounty, so long as they do not fall,-when any sin has been
committed, they meditate a deed as disgraceful as the honour was high which they
had. (It is this.) If an uncovered head is a recognised mark of virginity,
(then) if any virgin falls from the grace of virginity, she remains permanently
with head uncovered for fear of discovery, and walks about in a garb which then
indeed is another's. Conscious of a now undoubted womanhood, they have the
audacity to draw near to God with head bare. But the "jealous God and Lord," who
has said, "Nothing covered which shall not be revealed," brings such in general
before the public gaze; for confess they will not, unless betrayed by the cries
of their infants themselves. But, in so far as they are "more numerous," will
you not just have them suspected of the more crimes? I will say (albeit I would
rather not) it is a difficult thing for one to turn woman once for all who fears
to do so, and who, when already so turned (in secret), has the power of (still)
falsely pretending to be a virgin under the eye of God. What audacities, again,
will (such an one) venture on with regard to her womb, for fear of being
detected in being a mother as well! God knows how many infants He has helped to
perfection and through gestation till they were born sound and whole, after
being long fought against by their mothers! Such virgins ever conceive with the
readiest facility, and have the happiest deliveries, and children indeed most
like to their fathers!

These crimes does a forced and unwilling virginity incur. The very
concupiscence of non-concealment is not modest: it experiences somewhat which is
no mark of a virgin,--the study of pleasing, of course, ay, and (of pleasing)
men. Let her strive as much as you please with an honest mind; she must
necessarily be imperilled by the public exhibition s of herself, while she is
penetrated by the gaze of untrustworthy and multitudinous' eyes, while she is
tickled by pointing fingers, while she is too well loved, while she feels a
warmth creep over her amid assiduous embraces and kisses. Thus the forehead
hardens; thus the sense of shame wears away; thus it relaxes; thus is learned
the desire of pleasing in another way!

CHAP. XV.--OF FASCINATION.

Nay, but true and absolute and pure virginity fears nothing more than itself.
Even female eyes it shrinks from encountering. Other eyes itself has. It betakes
itself for refuge to the veil of the head as to a helmet, as to a shield, to
protect its glory against the blows of temptations, against the dam of scandals,
against suspicions and whispers and emulation; (against) envy also itself. For
there is a something even among the heathens to be apprehended, which they call
Fascination, the too unhappy result of excessive praise and glory. This we
sometimes interpretatively ascribe to the devil, for of him comes hatred of
good; sometimes we attribute it to God, for of Him comes judgment upon
haughtiness, exalting, as He does, the humble, and depressing the elated. The
more holy virgin, accordingly, will fear, even under the name of fascination, on
the one hand the adversary, on the other God,the envious disposition of the
former, the censorial light of the latter; and will joy in being known to
herself alone and to God. But even if she has been recognized by any other, she
is wise to have blocked up the pathway against temptations. For who will have
the audacity to intrude with his eyes upon a shrouded face? a face without
feeling? a face, so to say, morose? Any evil cogitation whatsoever will be
broken by the very severity. She who conceals her virginity, by that fact denies
even her womanhood.

CHAP. XVI.--TERTULLIAN, HAVING SHOWN HIS DEFENCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
SCRIPTURE, NATURE, AND DISCIPLINE, APPEALS TO THE VIRGINS THEMSELVES.

Herein consists the defence of our opinion, in accordance with Scripture, in
accordance with Nature, in accordance with Discipline. Scripture founds the law;
Nature joins to attest it; Discipline exacts it. Which of these (three) does a
custom rounded on (mere) opinion appear in behalf of? or what is the colour of
the opposite view? God's is Scripture; God's is Nature; God's is Discipline.
Whatever is contrary to these is not God's. If Scripture is uncertain, Nature is
manifest; and concerning Nature's testimony Scripture cannot be uncertain? If
there is a doubt about Nature, Discipline points out what is more sanctioned by
God. For nothing is to Him dearer than humility; nothing more acceptable than
modesty; nothing more offensive than "glory" and the study of men-pleasing. Let
that, accordingly, be to you Scripture, and Nature, and Discipline, which you
shall find to have been sanctioned by God; just as you are biddeu to "examine
all things, and diligently follow whatever is better."

It remains likewise that we turn to (the virgins) themselves, to induce them
to accept these (suggestions) the more willingly. I pray you, be you mother, or
sister, or virgin-daughter--let me address you according to the names proper to
your years--veil your head: if a mother, for your sons' sakes; if a sister, for
your brethren's sakes; if a daughter for your fathers' sakes. All ages are
perilled in your person. Put on the panoply of modesty; surround yourself with
the stockade of bashfulness; rear a rampart for your sex, which must neither
allow your own eyes egress nor ingress to other people's. Wear the full garb of
woman, to preserve the standing of virgin. Belie somewhat of your inward
consciousness, in order to exhibit the truth to God alone. And yet you do not
belie yourself in appearing as a bride. For wedded you are to Christ: to Him you
have surrendered your flesh; to Him you have espoused your maturity. Walk in
accordance with the will of your Espoused. Christ is He who bids the espoused
and wives of others Veil themselves; (and,) of course, ranch more His own.

CHAP. XVII.--AN APPEAL TO THE MARRIED WOMEN.

But we admonish you, too, women of the second (degree of) modesty, who have
fallen into wedlock, not to outgrow so far the discipline of the veil, not even
in a moment of an hour, as, because you cannot refuse it, to take some other
means to nullify it, by going neither covered nor bare. For some, with their
turbans and woollen bands, do not veil their head, but bind it up; protected,
indeed, in front, but, where the head properly lies, bare. Others are to a
certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen coifs of small
dimensions--I suppose for fear of pressing the head--and not reaching quite to
the ears. If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through
a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes "the
woman." Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe
begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the
hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they
which must be subjected, for the sake of which "power" ought to be "had on the
head:" the veil is their yoke. Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who
cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content,
with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire
face. A female would rather see than be seen. And for this reason a certain
Roman queen said that they were most unhappy, in that they could more easily
fall in love than be fallen in love with; whereas thay are rather happy, in
their immunity from that second (and indeed more frequent) infelicity, that
females are more apt to be fallen in love with than to fall in love. And the
modesty of heathen discipline, indeed, is more simple, and, so to say, more
barbaric. To us the Lord has, even by revelations, measured the space for the
veil to extend over. For a certain sister of ours was thus addressed by an
angel, beating her neck, as if in applause: "Elegant neck, and deservedly bare!
it is well for thee to unveil thyself from the head fight down to the loins,
lest withal this freedom of thy neck profit thee not!" And, of course, what you
have said to one you have said to all. But how severe a chastisement will they
likewise deserve, who, amid (the recital of) the Psalms, and at any mention of
(the name of) God, continue uncovered; (who) even when about to spend time in
prayer itself, with the utmost readiness place a fringe, or a tuft, or any
thread whatever, on the crown of their heads, and suppose themselves to be
covered? Of so small extent do they falsely imagine their head to be! Others,
who think the palm of their hand plainly greater than any fringe or thread,
misuse their head no less; like a certain (creature), more beast than bird,
albeit winged, with small head, long legs, and moreover of erect carriage. She,
they say, when she has to hide, thrusts away into a thicket her head
alone--plainly the whole of it, (though)--leaving all the rest of herself
exposed. Thus, while she is secure in head, (but) bare in her larger pans, she
is taken wholly, head and all. Such will be their plight withal, covered as they
are less than is useful.

It is incumbent, then, at all times and in every place, to walk mindful of
the law, prepared and equipped in readiness to meet every mention of God; who,
if He be in the heart, will be recognised as well in the head of females. To
such as read these (exhortations) with good will, to such as prefer Utility to
Custom, may peace and grace from our Lord Jesus Christ redound: as likewise to
Septimius Tertullianus, whose this tractate is.